I must say though that other than the spiritual nature of the Ark (even though I don't feel my answers were really directly answered), another good came out of this that brought me to enlightenment.

Recently, in my skepticism to miracles, I would insist upon a spiritual meaning or purpose of any miracle that occurred that spoke to me. Because I recognize how much the role of the Theotokos is involved in increasing the faith of a believer, I seem to now find comfort in turning the Zeitoun miracle that I previously denied to a miracle that speaks to me as well.

So thank you for this discussion nevertheless.

God bless.

Brother that miracles that your mentioned from Egypt...why does she resemble the fatima/lourds images....im very sceptical about that apparition....Christ Has Risen........

Brother that miracles that your mentioned from Egypt...why does she resemble the fatima/lourds images....im very sceptical about that apparition....Christ Has Risen........

It's okay to be skeptical. One is not required to believe in a miracle dogmatically, imo. I really never investigated why she looked like the one in Lourdes. But what is interesting is that she appeared at a church that bears her name. There has been mentioning that she walked around as well. If there's another explanation for this other than it being a miracle, I'm open to being wrong. But after the realization that she is the "gate of heaven who opens for us the gate of mercy," it is no wonder why people have such a strong faith through her.

What would an apparition of just the Theotokos look like for an Eastern Orthodox?

Truly He is Risen.

« Last Edit: May 03, 2008, 11:56:24 AM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

It's okay to be skeptical. One is not required to believe in a miracle dogmatically, imo. I really never investigated why she looked like the one in Lourdes. But what is interesting is that she appeared at a church that bears her name. There has been mentioning that she walked around as well. If there's another explanation for this other than it being a miracle, I'm open to being wrong. But after the realization that she is the "gate of heaven who opens for us the gate of mercy," it is no wonder why people have such a strong faith through her.

What would an apparition of just the Theotokos look like for an Eastern Orthodox?

Truly He is Risen.

Brother i would expect her to look more orthodox in red and blue robes and with jesus continuously in her hands...she has rays shooting out of her hands as a mediatrix of all graces..i don't believe or accept it....For with out jesus she can do nothing....it like this apparition is centered on her.........Christ Has Risen.........

Brother i would expect her to look more orthodox in red and blue robes and with jesus continuously in her hands...she has rays shooting out of her hands as a mediatrix of all graces..i don't believe or accept it....For with out jesus she can do nothing....it like this apparition is centered on her.........Christ Has Risen.........

Sorry Stashko, but I do not find your arguments to be sound. Allow me to make a few points:

1. Why would you expect the Holy Virgin to appear in red and blue? Because she is depicted as such in her icons? Well, icons of the Holy Virgin are one thing, and the actual person of Holy Virgin is another. Icons portray certain things a certain way, not for the purpose of conveying a perfect reflection of the subject's reality, but for the purpose of telling us something theologically instructive about the subject's reality. For example, the three stars depicted on the Holy Virgin's robe are indicative of her ever-virginity, but I think it would be silly to determine the authenticity of an alleged apparition of the Holy Virgin upon the basis of whether or not, upon careful inspection, three stars are to be found on the Virgin's robe. According to eye-witness testimony, and indeed, as can be seen from actual photographs of the event, the Holy Virgin appeared in pure bright light. Maybe she was wearing a red and blue robe...maybe she wasn't; if she was, I doubt those colours would be detectable amidst that glorious and overwhelming light that accompanied her. Do you really expect the Mother of Light to appear without light? What do you think such light is indicative of? Is it not indicative of the same thing that the halo with which she is depicted in our icons is indicative of?

2. The Virgin appearing with the Child Jesus: There's not much to say apart from the fact there is simply no good reason why the Holy Virgin must appear with the Lord Christ in the course of any apparition. It's not like such a solo appearance is unprecedented (putting aside the scale of such events) either. It seems that your fear that such would detract from focus on the Lord Jesus stems from a paranoia against RC Mariological developments and eccentricities. The Virgin Mary did not appear over a Roman Catholic church, however. She appeared over an Orthodox church, and any wild misinterpretation of a solo appearance which might lead one to elevate the Holy Virgin beyond what is proper is, if not precluded by common sense, absolutely precluded within the context of the Orthodox Faith. As an aside, it might help you to know that in the course of her apparition she was observed to pay homage to the cross on top of the dome of the church over which she so appeared.

3. As far as I know, no one noted light coming from her hands in particular, and the photographs do not show that. She was seen wholly illuminated.

4. When it comes to miraculous phenomena, we are not, as laity, in the habit of relying on our own personal discretion and analsysis of the events. In fact, we are strongly discouraged from doing so (even, and particularly, when so doing inclines us to accept the authenticity of miraculous phenomena--the Church advises us to be prima facie skeptical; such a position is considered to reflect the "safer side"). Discerning the authenticity of any alleged miraculous phenomena is primarily a spiritual exercise (obviously because we are dealing with something that seems to be an expression of the spiritual realm); that is why we wait for the Holy Spirit to confirm/deny such authenticity through the voice of the Church. As far as the apparition at Zeitoun is concerned I don't think any Copt could ask for any greater security than knowing that it was approved by the Holy Synod, including the late and saintly Pope Kyrillos VI. Pope St Kyrillos' word would have been enough for me, as far as i'm personally concerned; God has worked undeniable wonders through this great Saint, and he has personally touched, even after his departure, almost every Coptic family in the world in one way or another.

« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 08:59:22 PM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Brother.... I love the Most Holy and Blessed Mother Of God Holy Mary....its the way she's being depicted seem so latin that in it self makes me wonder and think and question ,, it's authenticity...why are they using Lourdes look..i don't believe or trust the latin apparitions as true.period....Christ Has Risen...you are correct in how the orthodox approches her......

The Zeitoun Apparition was a large sillouette of the Virgin Mary in Light, which appeared on the top of the church usually in front of the dome. No artistic rendering using colors can accurately portray the event.

I'm a bit confused. Do you have a problem with the actual apparition itself, or just the various artistic depictions of the event which essentially involve a cut and paste of images like this:

...over a drawing/painting of the church in Zeitoun?

This image i do not like at all.......She's appears as some type of goddess,,that's what this image projects to me....i like our holy icons of her,,, shows her humble and holy and loving and a tender mom......i definitely don't believe in the apparition of Lourdes,,, hate the image.......Christ has Risen... ...note my avitar iconas these are the type i grew up around.....these i like to me they project holiness,and a sanctity about them and awe......the one above nada only pagan goddess....

This image i do not like at all.......She's appears as some type of goddess,,that's what this image projects to me....i like our holy icons of her,,, shows her humble and holy and loving and a tender mom......i definitely don't believe in the apparition of Lourdes,,, hate the image.......Christ has Risen... ...note my avitar iconas these are the type i grew up around.....these i like to me they project holiness,and a sanctity about them and awe......the one above nada only pagan goddess....

I personally have no problem with this icon. It's a matter of interpretation. Many others depict the Theotokos with the child Jesus not so much to depict humility, but of her status as Queen of the Human race. In fact, some people if misinterpreting this might consider this another way of depicting her like a goddess holding the baby incarnate God. In ancient Egyptian art, there is a similar depiction between Isis and Horus, and ancient Egyptians could have easily misinterpreted the icon of the baby Jesus on the Theotokos' lap as a goddess with her child, a god.

In addition, the colors we use on iconography does not depict a literal truth, but some sort of symbolic truth. I think EA makes the case very well that the three stars we use does not necessarily mean she actually wears three stars on herself.

There are two famous pictures of the Zeitoun apparition that was used, both with great illumination, and not with colors. One of which she seems to spread her hands to the crowd (which is probably the one you seem to not like) and a dove that is above her (the Holy Spirit?) and one where she kneels and prays in front of the Cross on a dome. I'm sure there were other positions or things she done. In any sense it shows a Virgin who is humble enough to pray and still maintains her love and intercessions for the people of Zeitoun.

And there's this other photo that seems to depict the Mother Mary with the baby Jesus, but I'm not sure if this one is an actual photo:

God bless.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2008, 02:08:23 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Thats why i prefer icon's ,,who ever be monk's or nun's before they write a icon with a brush they thru fasting and prayers for the holy spirit's guide-n's. before they even start there work...thats why many icon's are miraculous in the eastern churches....in the west anybody can paint what they call religious art anyway the want theres no school to guide them ,,,look at the vatican ceiling .nudes evereywhere..... .........Christ has Risen ........